Pa. gubernatorial candidate Schwartz accidentally calls husband of rival, McGinty
In the hours before a Monday campaign finance deadline, a Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate contacted an unlikely supporter: an opponent's spouse.
Rep. Allyson Schwartz dialed the cell number of Karl Hausker, husband of fellow Democratic gubernatorial primary candidate Katie McGinty, a McGinty campaign spokesman said. Schwartz introduced herself as a congresswoman running for governor. Then the conversation turned.
“She never made the hard ask,” said McGinty spokesman Mike Mikus. “He said something along the lines of, ‘I need to interrupt you. I'm Katie McGinty's husband.' ”
McGinty wasn't home when Schwartz called. Mikus said McGinty was surprised, but “laughed it off.”
Mikus said the Schwartz campaign likely had Hausker's number because he donated to Democrats such as President Obama.
Mark Bergman, spokesman for Schwartz, said the call was “an inadvertent dial,” and there was no conversation about money. The campaign so far has a strong showing from individual donors, with more than 10,000 representing every county in the commonwealth, Bergman said.
Monday was the end of the first cycle for campaign finance reporting from 2014 primary candidates. Reports must be filed by April 8.
Also running in the Democratic primary are York County businessman Tom Wolf and state Treasurer Rob McCord.
Melissa Daniels is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-380-8511 or email@example.com.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.